Good news for those who hope to undermine reasonable discussion by posting rude remarks. It works.

People who read a scientific article about the risks of nanotechnology were evenly split in their conclusions about risk when the accompanying online comments were polite, whereas the same article with rude comments expressing the same reactions as the polite comments produced 32% seeing low risk and 52% seeing high risk, suggesting that the rude comments by themselves produce polarization independently of the content of the original statements.

The authors of the study concluded that banning rude comments was a reasonable way to obtain a fair reading of the original material and recommended that practice to the authors of scientific blogs.

There being no chance of civility ever breaking out in places like this, it may be worth considering whether your own conclusions have been distorted by the tone rather than the content of the conversation.

Good news for those who hope to undermine reasonable discussion by posting rude remarks. It works.

People who read a scientific article about the risks of nanotechnology were evenly split in their conclusions about risk when the accompanying online comments were polite, whereas the same article with rude comments expressing the same reactions as the polite comments produced 32% seeing low risk and 52% seeing high risk, suggesting that the rude comments by themselves produce polarization independently of the content of the original statements.

The authors of the study concluded that banning rude comments was a reasonable way to obtain a fair reading of the original material and recommended that practice to the authors of scientific blogs.

There being no chance of civility ever breaking out in places like this, it may be worth considering whether your own conclusions have been distorted by the tone rather than the content of the conversation.

This is why, despite the majority of Americans saying in various polls that they would prefer to see fewer negative ads, the negative ads continue. Because, despite what people SAY they want to see, the results show time and time again that they are influenced by those ads more than they are by feel-good positive ads or "substantive information" ads.

I might become more proactive about banning rude posts though... First on the line, bearbreeder.

There being no chance of civility ever breaking out in places like this, it may be worth considering whether your own conclusions have been distorted by the tone rather than the content of the conversation.

Interesting. I think my conclusions are distorted but not in the way the article suggests. After reading consecutive rude posts I find myself thinking "Yeah, that guy's (girl's) just another ass. (S)he's got nothing to say that I need to know" and I tend to disregard what (s)he writes - even if it's accurate. I wonder if other people do that.

After reading consecutive rude posts I find myself thinking "Yeah, that guy's (girl's) just another ass. (S)he's got nothing to say that I need to know" and I tend to disregard what (s)he writes - even if it's accurate.

... and it can be a double-edged sword. The weak are irresistibly drawn to someone who superficially appears authoritative and thereby Darwinism bites from both the inside and the outside.

Good news for those who hope to undermine reasonable discussion by posting rude remarks. It works.

People who read a scientific article about the risks of nanotechnology were evenly split in their conclusions about risk when the accompanying online comments were polite, whereas the same article with rude comments expressing the same reactions as the polite comments produced 32% seeing low risk and 52% seeing high risk, suggesting that the rude comments by themselves produce polarization independently of the content of the original statements.

The authors of the study concluded that banning rude comments was a reasonable way to obtain a fair reading of the original material and recommended that practice to the authors of scientific blogs.

There being no chance of civility ever breaking out in places like this, it may be worth considering whether your own conclusions have been distorted by the tone rather than the content of the conversation.

I wonder if some people are swayed by rude comments because they are afraid of being the next target. The whole "pack mentality." They would rather be on the wrong side than be alone to defend themselves.

Perhaps you enjoy enhanced consideration for being wrong and rude at the same time?

Curt

youre absolutely right ... the topics everyone goes on and on about on RC such as PASes, daisies, crossloading belay biners, equalettes on TR bolt anchors, autoblock mode, screamers, etc ... are all known common killers ...

i am absolutely wrong in suggesting that those arent generally whats going to kill you ...

if you dont listen and follow exactly what certain RCers tell ya ... youll simply go kaput ... as some will tell you in no uncertain terms

in real life people dont just go out and climb without worrying about the intrawebs

i shook in fear at the horror of my deadly daisy today when climbing in the bluffs

I don't think the article is particularly well-written. "Rudeness" doesn't cover the range of of uncivil, pejorative, and illogical responses that seem to contribute to polarization. I don't know if there is a single word that does the trick, nor do I claim to have covered the bases with three.

The results of the study suggest that the effect of "rude" responses is to weight readers' opinions negatively. But there are other notable effects, which is that the original discussion, whatever its merit, devolves into a personal shouting match and the original topic is lost. I suppose this is gratifying to those who came for the "entertainment value" of bad behavior, but for others it is just an example of static overwhelming the signal.

The term "undermining the authority" was, I think, unfortunate, and resulted in a few comments which I think miss the real point. I don't think that "authority" was meant as personal quality of an individual and that there was ever a suggestion that the options were either blind acceptance or rude rebuttal. I think the author should have spoken about undermining the authority of science rather than of scientists. A scientific result becomes authoritative as a result of an intense and often prolonged discussion. Anything that either inhibits or perverts the results of such discussions undermines the authority of the resulting conclusions.

As for whether the discussions here and on other sites are "relevant" to the "real world" of climbing, I would say first that folks are going discuss what interests them, and incessantly droning on about the fact that those discussions don't matter isn't going to make one iota of difference. But beyond that, I would note that the history of science, and particularly of mathematics, has shown over and over again that the most "irrelevant" topics have turned out to have critical "real-world" uses, and that there is absolutely no way to judge "relevance" at the time of a discussion, nor is there any way to predict what kinds of ideas will arise as a result of a discussion. What we've learned about human progress is that you have to let people investigate and discuss what interests them, and out of this soup comes the world's most important advances. It is true that the price paid is the propagation of much that is unimportant, but no one has found a way to extract the nuggets without sifting through the sand.

It would be absurd to suggest that scientific breakthroughs will result from a discussion about the utility of rappel backups, but I believe that the same basic principle, which is to say that progress is most likely to result from unfettered discussion, applies. So in addition to the fact that no one is going to pay the slightest attention to someone who thinks they can dictate what can or cannot be discussed, I think that such discussions, in total if not individually, are intrinsically valuable.

I agree, the wording of the title regarding the "authority of scientists" was unfortunate. It should have been written more carefully.

I have tried to keep the discourse on the injury forum civil at most times, in my limited capacity as a non-moderator. I have noticed your civil tone at most times also. Nothing can really be learned in noisy threads, and that gets boring. I think this thread you started is actually one of the more useful in the General category, and your thoughtful comments were a good contribution. Thank you.

Ultimately, I think we know that certain categories will be noisy, while some will tend to remain on topic. Hopefully those who enjoy bickering will keep to themselves (although I sometimes like participating in lively debate!) while those who prefer getting more useful, in depth conversations can have that, too. I think Injuries and Gear Heads stay on track pretty well. I would hope that Bearbreeder would be patient about the constant dyneema threads. It's not personal; people have a question, so they ask without searching. Don't get mad or abusive about it, either answer well, or leave it alone.

I certainly get tired at times of answering people who wonder why their ring finger hurts after climbing 5 days in a row on plastic and can now boulder V6 in only 2 months and wonder how they can keep their strength up and keep climbing without further injury.